Canon 17-55mm IS vs. Tamron 17-50 review

I decided to do a short comparison of this lens to the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens that I previously owned. I've seen the many threads asking whether or not this lens is worth the extra cost and I thought I'd add my perspective since I have actually owned the Tamron.

Build
In the build department, I'm going to be honest here and give a slight nod to the Tamron. I feel that the zoom ring is better dampened and that the barrel does not have as much play as on the Canon. That being said, the Canon is a denser lens and I prefer the extra weight because it balances perfectly on my 40D. The build on the Canon is not bad IMO and has a much better feel than the 28-135mm that I used to have, especially when it comes to zoom creep. The 28-135 always felt very cheap to me and I don't really get that feeling with the 17-55.
Canon: 7/10
Tamron 8/10

Focus
This is one of the areas where the Canon really pulls ahead of the Tamron. I found the Tamron to be sufficient in most settings, even without USM, due to the short zoom range and the loudness didn't really bother me much, but the focus on the Canon is VERY nice. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is the best focusing lens that I have personally used. It is super fast and silent and in darkness, it really shines. I found the Tamron accuracy to be decent, but it lags behind the Canon in this area as well, but only in low-light really. For someone frequently doing low-light work, I think the Canon might be worth the extra money in the long run just for this reason. On a side note, I don't care for the manual focus rings for either lens, but I generally shoot autofocus, so it's no big deal.
Canon: 10/10
Tamron: 7/10

Image Quality
I found both lenses to be very nice in this regard, so there are definitely no complaints on either one. I honestly couldn't tell you which one is better. I actually like the slightly warm color cast of the Tamron, but this is easily replicated in pp, so it's not a big deal.
Tamron: 9/10
Canon: 9/10

Image Stabilization
Since the Tamron does not have an IS/VC mechanism and I haven't used the new VC version, I won't say much here. I will mention that the claim on the canon of 3 stop IS seems to be accurate and that the IS system is extremely smooth in operation and completely silent as far as I've noticed.

Conclusion
In my opinion the Canon is worth spending the extra money on in the long term. It combines both image stabilization and usm, which makes it very nice to use in low-light conditions and in any indoor situations. For a shooter that shoots most of their shots during the day or only with flash indoors, it might make more sense to pick up the Tamron and save towards another lens. For most people however, I feel that the Canon is a more versatile lens which will provide more keepers in the long term in more situations. The images coming out of the camera are basically the same, so you'll have to decide if that versatility is necessary for you or not.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. Very helpful since I'm having some issues with my Tamron 17-50 non-VC (low light AF and unsharp pictures with longer shutter times). I was already looking at the 17-55 IS USM, but wasn't sure if it was worth the extra money. Now I'm more sure that it is. Do you have issues with the flare sensitivity of the 17-55 in daily use or is it not such a big deal in reality?

Shouldn't the comparison be between the 17-55 IS and the new Tamron 17-50 VC?

By the way, today I was at a camera shop and I asked about the 17-55 and its dust reputation. The sales guy told me that the dust problem was with the first 17-55 series, that it was due to a rubber ring issue and that the new series don't have this problem anymore. Is that true?

I was not aware that there was a first and second series. Sounds like something a salesperson would say.

About a year ago I was looking for a 2.8 lens in this range. First I purchased a brand new Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 at the same time. After a bunch of meticulous testing my Sigma copy was better than the Tamron, so I sent the Tamron back. Then a couple months later I had a very important photoshoot and bought a used Canon 17-55. The Canon was an improvement in the IQ over the Sigma and the Tamron I had, I tested it the same way I did my Sigma and Tamron, even compared them in manual focus mode, tripod, timer etc. And of course the AF is a different class. The IS helps too.
Anyway, I think the Tamron (and the Sigma) are great value lenses, but the Canon is obviously better. Is it worth the big price difference? That's everyone's own decision based on usage, budget etc. (Is a Suhr Classic strat really $1400.00 better than an Fender American Standard strat? For many it may be just a slight improvement but for some the answer is definitely yes.)

Thanks for doing,and posting your review-i am looking at one of these

lenses.

Cheers

gasrocks wrote in post #9271323
Shouldn't the comparison be between the 17-55 IS and the new Tamron 17-50 VC?

If I had used the VC version of the lens, I would have made that comparison. I have not though, so I was just comparing my experience with the non-VC version vs. the Canon.